meanfreepathapdedia?

Wikipedia has certainly changed the way knowledge is gathered, shared, stored and retrieved. In fact, wiki is usually my first source when looking for information on a topic, and I'm sure many of you are the same. Of course, now it seems that every subject imaginable has it's own dedicated wiki site. It's really easy, too. Just set up a wiki and call it _____apedia and you are good to go. There's wookiepedia for you star wars fans, uncyclopedia for you satire (among other less sophisticated styles of humor) fans, even bulbapedia for you Pokemon fans.

But I have found a new one: Conservapedia. Now, I'm a somewhat conservative leaning person, but this site is the very definition of right wing nut job. As an aside, go there and search for liberal for a good laugh. However, there is a more serious concern that I wished to address. There is a project they have titled the Conservative Bible Project, the goal of which is to "re-translate" the bible to remove liberal biases. We have apparently gotten to the point where not even the Bible is conservative enough anymore. They claim that all current translations of the Bible suffer from a liberal translation bias. Now I would agree that it really is impossible to translate anything from one language to another with absolutely no translation bias, but it seems like translating the bible with the intent of making it more conservative is the very definition.

And by re-translate, the authors mean looking through the King James version and changing words and phrases they feel are too liberal into more accurate conservative ones. They're even nice enough to post some examples for us. My favorite is this line. "Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians." Go ahead. Re-read that sentence. Yeah, it really does say that. Now I haven't actually read any of the re-translated version. I know, shame on me for criticizing what I haven't actually reviewed. But I feel the one example I shared is sufficient. Besides, this isn't really the point I want to drive at.

I guess the point I really want to make is this: we are probably all guilty of this very same thing ourselves. Not the whole re-translating from an existing version to fit your principles bit. But we can't help but put our own biases on what we read. It's human nature and we do it without even realizing it. It's almost impossible not to interpret what you read in order to fit into your world view and justify your actions. And one of the hardest things to do is to read the Bible and allow it to change your perceptions, your mindset and your life.

All of this reminds me of a quote from Shepherd Book. And I think I'll end with it.

"You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you. "

Waterfalls, Bad Puns, and Groceries

I have decided that I would give a brief update on my life.

-As you probably know, I have started a Ph.D. at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. This means that sometime in the next 4 to 12 years you will be able to start calling me Dr. Jonathan Steffens.

-Ithaca is beautiful. I have seen some wonderful waterfalls and wooded trails through state parks and amazingly high rock formations. Ithaca is rather famous for it's gorges. While they can be quite spectacular to look at, the gorges also lead to what is most definitely the largest drawback to living in Ithaca, which is summed up in the next point.

-Ithaca's motto is a pun, and it's everywhere. I won't even lower myself to state it here, but you probably know what it is anyway. If you don't, consider yourself a truly blessed person. I see at least a dozen shirts and bumper stickers a day bearing this monstrosity. You know how animal rights activists sometimes go around splattering paint on fur coats? I've lived here two weeks, and I am considering doing that to people wearing these shirts.

-Luckily there is one place in Ithaca that makes me forget all about the horribleness of the previous point. And that place is Wegmans. Living in Rochester I have grown to love this supermarket. But the Wegmans in Ithaca is awe inspiring. That is really the only way I can describe it. It could swallow 4 normal Wegmans whole and still have room for dessert. You should visit Ithaca if for no other reason than to shop at this majestic place.

-Also I'm taking classes. Unlike RIT, I started a week and a half ago. I did still have class today, Labor Day, however. My two classes are Foundations of Fluid Mechanics and Asymptotics and Perturbation Methods. Fluids should be mostly a review of classes I've already taken. Asymptotics is just fun.

-In addition to classes, I have to TA a senior heat transfer lab. I start tomorrow. The first experiment is taking various measurements of a truck while it's running, like engine speed, power output, etc. It's not terribly exciting but it's how I pay the bills.

-I am also starting research. My current project is focused on developing a model to analyze the effects of roadside obstructions (walls, trees) on pollutant dispersion patterns. It mostly involves computational fluid dynamics.

-I've started making friends. I have been going to activities hosted by the Graduate Christian Fellowship, which is loosely affiliated with IV. We played some Frisbee Golf variant around Campus on Saturday. It was like disc golf but with teams that you had to relay the Frisbee to without dropping it. My team won.

That about sums up my time here thus far. You should come visit me. We'll go grocery shopping.

Dritzak!

It has oft been discussed that there exist no such written rules to the highly popular card game Dritzak. Your first reaction to this is most assuredly one of incredulity. How can such a game rooted in so much historical significance not have a written set of rules? This question will be answered by giving a brief history of the game and subsequently explain the rules as we now understand them. Bear in mind that I will only be touching the surface of the long, magnificent, and often times dark tale as a preface to the rules which will be presented.

History of the Game:

Legend has it that the true name of the game cannot be uttered using any human phonemes. The name Dritzak was the closest that mere mortals would ever come to a pronunciation. Almost all mythologies present some sort of origination story for Dritzak. The most well known however, is probably that of Greek mythology. As the story goes, Dritzak was created by Cronus. Cronus declared that this game was so perfect, not even his own son, Zeus, could play. Outraged, Zeus overthrew his father and the Titans, ushering in the age of the Olympians, and Dritzak was decreed to be the game of the gods. Later, Prometheus tricked Zeus into teaching him the rules, and subsequently taught the game to humans. Zeus, in a state of unrivaled fury, punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock, where his liver would be devoured every day by an eagle and regrow every night. Nonetheless, Dritzak had arrived to mankind and it would forever alter the course of history.

The earliest records of Dritzak are found in the Minoan civilization circa 2000 B.C. The game was only played among the ruling class and for anyone else to play was punishable by death. The game spread quickly with the rise of the Greek city-states. This period is often known as the golden age of Dritzak. It became acceptable for all people to play. Many books were written about the game. Mathematicians tried to devise winning strategies; philosophers pondered the metaphysical properties; politicians sometimes even settled quarrels by playing. However, with the rise of the Roman Empire Dritzak became once again a game of privilege, only played by the senators and eventually the Caesar. The commoners were once again forbidden to play and eventually public knowledge of the rules disappeared altogether. Even the multitude of books written on the subject were wiped out when the Library of Alexandria burned to the ground in the first century. When Rome fell, so too, it seemed, had all knowledge of the once magnificent game.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that a book, detailing the rules for an ancient game, named Dritzak, was discovered in an Egyptian Monastery. It had been fervently guarded by the monks there for centuries. Historians of all backgrounds were amazed at the find. The book was thoroughly studied and dissected. Eventually, through word of mouth, the game spread, with each historian bringing the game back to his or her homeland. I will not delve into the modern history of the game, as I am sure you are mostly familiar with it. Perhaps that is the topic of another time, as it has been at the root of both evil and good, war and peace; it has both divided and unified nations and peoples. As for right now, that will suffice. Now onto the rules.

The rules of Dritzak:

Dritzak is a card game of mostly skill. There are of course minor factors of luck, but a skillful player is able to win with whatever hand they are dealt.

You will need:

• One standard deck of 52 playing cards.
• 2-5 players. (Variations exist for more players and will be discussed in the rule variations section.)

Objective:

• Each player is dealt a hand. The first player to play all of their cards is the winner.

The Deal:

• One player is selected to be the dealer.
• The dealer will deal in whatever way they see fit so long as each player receives three face down cards and six additional cards that will form the players hand. The three face down cards may not be seen by any player. The additional six cards can be dealt face up or face down at the dealers whim.
• The player picks up and looks at all six hand cards.
• The player will choose three cards from their hand and place them face up on top of the face down cards. These cards will remain there until the second stage of the game.
• The remaining cards are placed in the middle to form the draw pile.

Stage 1:

• Play starts so that the player with the lowest card in their hand is allowed to play first. This is generally accomplished by the dealer asking if anyone has 3s, then 4s, then 5s, etc.
• If more than one player shares the lowest card, then the starting player is chosen so that the maximum number of the lowest card can be played to start the game. For example, players A, B, and C are in a circle, with C playing after B, who in turn plays after A and so on. Players A and B both have threes while C does not. Thus, A will start play with a 3 followed by B.
• Note: While it is not expressly forbidden, it is considered poor form for B in the above example to not play a 3 during the start of the game, unless doing so creates a really funny situation.
• If there is more than one possible way to create the greatest number of lowest cards played, for example a four player game where the players sitting opposite from each other each have 3s and the other players do not, first play goes to the winner of a best of three rock, paper, scissors match. If more complicated situations arise, get creative.
  
• Play moves in a clockwise direction.
• A player may play any card so long as it matches or beats the card already down with two exceptions: a player may play a 2 or a 10 at any time. Aces are considered high.
  
• The 2 acts as a start over card. A 2 may be played on any card and any card may be played on a two. The 10 is referred to as the clear card. It may be played on any card. After doing so, the player discards the entire pile of cards and is allowed to play again with any card in their hand.
• If a player is unable to match or beat the top card, and does not have a 2 or a 10, they must pick up the entire pile. The player to the left then begins play again choosing from any card in their hand. A player may pick up a pile even if they have a legal move for strategic purposes. However, if it is your play and there is no pile, you are forced to play a card.
• If you possess two or more cards of the same value, you may play them all on your turn, assuming they match or beat the top card.
• After you play, draw cards from the draw pile so that your hand size is back to three. If after you play you have three or more cards in your hand, do not draw new cards. In addition, after playing a 10, you may draw a card if you only have two cards in your hand before playing again.
• If at any time all four of the same value card are played directly after each other, either by one player or multiple players, it acts as if a 10 and the pile is cleared with the player who completed the set taking another turn. If a player has all four of one value card, they may not be played unless they match or beat the top card in the play pile.
  
• Play continues in this manner until the draw pile is empty and a player plays the last card in their hand.
  

Stage 2:

• Once the draw pile is depleted, play continues in the same manner as stage 1, except no new cards are drawn.
  
• Once all cards have been played from a players hand, the player plays from the face up cards in front of them. If no face up card can be played, the player picks up the pile and must play all cards in hand before being able to play from the face up cards again.
• A player is allowed to play more than one face up card at a time assuming the cards are of the same value. A player may not play the last card from their hand and a matching face up card at the same time. Face up cards may not be played until the turn after a player rids themselves of all hand cards.
• Once all face up cards have been played, the player selects a face down card to play on their next turn. If this card does not make a legal play, the player picks up the pile, including the offending card and puts them in their hand.
• The player cannot play another face down card until all cards have been played from their hand.

Winning the Game:

• When one player plays their last card so that none remain face down or in their hands, they are declared the winner.
• In the event that one is playing, it is not possible for a female to win Dritzak. It is the goal of the player to her right to make sure she does not win. When a male does end up inevitably winning, all the males are considered to have won. Since it is impossible for a female to win, whenever a game ends with a female playing her last card, it is declared that she has cheated and the win does not count. Another game must be played in order to guarantee a fair ending.
• There exists a special victory condition. That is when a player plays the second to last face down card and reveals a 10. This immediately clears the pile and he plays his last face down card and wins. This is known as the walk-off Deegan. It is an acceptable reason to gloat. Other variations of this include the double, triple and quadruple walk-off Deegan. For these conditions to apply, the last two, three or four cards played before the final face down card must all be 10's. Having a 10 as the final card played does not count towards any walk-off.

Rule Variations:

• Skip Rules - If a player plays the same value card as the top card, the next player in line is skipped over and misses their turn. If two of the same value card are played on the same value top card, the next two players are skipped. If playing any number of same value cards causes all four to be together in the play pile, the pile clears with the player completing the set playing again. No players are skipped. Note that a player must play on a same value card already played in order to skip. Playing two of the same valued card on a lower valued card will not skip any players.
• Rule of 7s - When a player plays a 7, the next player must play a card that either matches or is lower than 7. This rule applies only when a 7 is the top card and is no longer in effect if the next player plays lower.
• 6 player game - since there are insufficient cards to deal 9 each with 6 players, only deal 5 cards to each players hand. Each player puts three cards face up and keeps a hand of 2. After a play, a player draws back up to two cards if necessary.
• Multiple decks - it is possible to play with multiple decks for larger groups. Play should be exactly the same except for how to handle getting a set of cards to act as a 10. Three possibilities exist: any four same face value cards, all 8 (or 12, 16 etc), and any four same value cards of unique suites.
  
• Reversal - Matching the top card of the play pile causes the direction of play to reverse. If play is moving clockwise, switch to counter-clockwise and vice verse. It only reverses once for one player playing doubles on a same value card. Clearing a pile by completing the set still reverses play.
  

Miscellaneous Notes:

• While it may seem random, deciding on which face down card to play most certainly is not. The value of each card is known by the one they call Shijo. If you are blessed enough to be in his vicinity during play, you may ask for his advice of which card to play. If the Shijo is feeling benevolent, he may even reveal which card to play. Even if he is not at your location, he is still able to give you advice if you ask. You must be strong with the Shijo to get accurate results, however. Any misplay is a result of your own weakness.
• The walk off Deegan is rare enough by itself and certainly reason to celebrate. However, the double walk-off will most assuredly amaze all who are watching. The triple walk-off is likely to cause every person withing half a mile to fall into a stunned silence for upwards of five minutes, whether they were watching the game or not. The quadruple walk-off has never happened in recorded history. There is a legend of a man who once accomplished the feat and immediately began to glow and ascended into the sky, never to be seen from again.

And there you have it. The most comprehensive rule set for Dritzak on the Internet.

Good Luck, and may the Shijo be with you!

Don't Try to Take Analogies Too Far

Apparently I haven't posted in a while. Sometimes if you yell at me for it I will have more motivation to do so. Anyway, I was riding back to Rochester on Saturday and I thought of this analogy. I thought I'd share it to appease my fan(s).

Life reminds me of an engineering problem. How you solve it depends a good deal on what assumptions you make. We have to start off with some sort of basis of understanding and then our view of the world follows from that. The issue with people and engineering students alike, however, is that they usually don't know why they have to make certain assumptions. They just make them so that the problem becomes solvable or at least easier. I can't tell you how many times I made the continuum assumption before I actually understood what it meant. There has to be a good justification for every assumption made in life.

Let's apply this to the commonly discussed problem of the existence of God. This assumption certainly is at the base of almost every life philosophy people have. The three factions here are the believers, the atheists and the agnostics.

Believers and atheists alike are able to form world views based on whether or not they believe God to exists. Believers obtain meaning from whatever god(s) that they believe in. Atheists say the universe is without purpose so it's up to the individual to find it. It's hard, maybe even impossible, to "solve" life without this assumption. This is my main problem with people who call themselves agnostics. They all, almost without fail, subscribe to the atheistic world view. They simply want to have some sort of insurance on the believers side because they are not certain. But most believers and atheists aren't absolutely certain. There are always doubts. If agnostics look like, walk like, and quack like atheists...

It is important to know the assumptions made by another person. The reason it is often moot to argue with someone is that the two parties are usually operating from different baselines. If you've ever heard a Christan and an atheist debate, then you probably notice that they end up debating two entirely different things as if they were the same. Christians primarily use anecdotal evidence, which really can't be refuted by any sort of logical argument. Atheists can't really disprove God, they can only try to argue that there are ways to view the universe that don't require any sort of higher being. There is NO WAY for these two sides to reach any sort of consensus. If someone is not truly seeking for the truth, no one can convince them that they are wrong (whether or not they actually are).


I had a discussion a few days ago about how people were typically bad at self-reflection. I think one good way to reflect on yourself is to think about what assumptions you make without ever really realizing it. What makes them good/bad assumptions and how do they affect your life?

That last paragraph looks like homework. FUN!

It's Getting Hot in Here

Texas is silly. The chairman of the board claimed that "Conservatives like me think the evidence (for human contributions to global warming) is a bunch of hooey." My first reaction is did he just use the phrase 'bunch of hooey'? My second reaction is that the evidence is actually quite strongly in support of climate change due to human contributions. Another argument people will sometimes use is that there is no scientific consensus on the issue. That's just not true. My third reaction is to question the generality that rejecting climate change is a conservative thing. The Pew Research Center somewhat substantiates that claim. I suppose being on a college campus gives me a fairly narrow idea of public opinion, so I was a little surprised at the findings. Fewer than half of Americans find global warming to be a serious problem. And it is. Now I suppose that number was a lot lower even a few years ago so at least we are trending in the right direction.

I think my real question though is why. Why are people opposed to this concept? I don't think it raises any theological concerns. It might raise some minor moral concerns (like I should recycle, conserve water, etc). I can imagine certain industries choosing not to believe it since it would force tighter environmental restrictions and thus cut profits. Are these industries just that good at influencing public opinion?

One other note. I don't particularly care about the planet earth. The planet will survive just fine. It's the people that will have problems. My concern for the environment is not me being an environmentalist, it's me being a humanitarian.

Abortion

The basic argument behind abortion usually comes down to whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. Pro-life people insist life begins at conception. Pro-choice people insist human life begins at birth or at some far along point in the pregnancy. The difficulty for pro-choice people is creating some sort of dividing line between human and not human. Conception at least makes for a logical jump to personhood. There are other arguments in favor of abortion. One notable philosopher, Peter Singer, argues that life begins at conception, but there is nothing wrong about terminating the pregnancy. From a utilitarian perspective, by terminating the pregnancy, the baby doesn't lose much (it has virtually no cognitive ability) but the mother has potentially much to gain. Peter Singer goes on to use this argument to even justify infanticide! I have always been in the anti-abortion camp. It never made sense to me to have life begin anywhere but conception and killing an innocent human being seems to go against everything I believe in regardless of any utilitarian gain.

However, I came across this article the other day which discusses when life begins from a biblical perspective. It lays out a fairly convincing argument that, Biblically speaking, human life begins at first breath. Before the baby breathes, it is something less than human. After first breath it becomes a 'living soul.' I will summarize the basic ideas presented:

• Genesis says that Adam did not become a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.
• In the accounts of Jesus and Stephen, their souls departed their physical bodies when they breathed their last.
• When Ezekiel saw the army of dry bones regrow muscle and flesh they were not alive until breathe entered their bodies.
• The author goes on to say that just because a fetus is not a living soul does not necessarily justify abortion
• In addition this raises some interesting questions about embryonic stem cell research
  

After a little more searching I found another article. The author is some sort of Bible Scholar who advocates abortion. While he definitely shows some aggression towards anti-abortionists (he calls anyone who is against every type of abortion a fanatic) , he does make some interesting points. I recommend you take a look.

While I still have extreme moral concerns with abortion, these articles are at least causing me to think.

Why are Christians Conservative?

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my political beliefs. Coming from a traditional Christian home, it should come as no surprise that I was raised to be a republican. Almost every Christian I know is conservative. The reasons for this seem logical enough. Republicans stand for morals that are closer in line with those of the Bible. The traditional family becomes the example. Father is off at work while the mother drives the two and a half kids to soccer practice in the minivan. They have a nice sized house in a nice suburban area. This is the ideal family that the liberals are trying to destroy. Liberals stand for immorality.

Really though, how many social issues are there in the Democratic party that are anti-christian morally? Abortion, gay rights, embryonic stem cell, and ... what else? Christians have bought into these few issues so thoroughly that they have decided that they can't possibly be democrats and thus buy into everything else that comes with being republicans. Christians in general hate the idea of increased taxes on the rich and having more social programs for the poor. Things like universal health care, increased welfare, etc become associated with the 'evil' democratic party.

Now I know what the typical response is to all this. The government shouldn't be the ones to care for those in need. That job belongs to the church. Or Christians should be the ones to take care of the needy. We shouldn't let the government do it for us. Another argument is that people will just end up taking advantage of these programs. If I give personally then I can be sure that the right people are getting the help. These arguments are weak. Most of the Christians I know do their couple of service events a year and spend the rest of the time focused on themselves. If there were no government programs to help those in need, very few people would ever get help. Of course there are those who will take advantage. But there are so many who are honestly trying but just can't get out of their circumstances through no fault of their own. Do we let those people suffer because there are those who will take advantage of you?

I see nothing particularly christian about the ideal family touted by conservatives. I see a lot that is christian about helping those in need, even if it is through the government. There are still the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc. I have been against legislating against gay marriage for a while now. I say it in that confusing way because I am not exactly for gay marriage. So for me at least, the issue of republican versus democrat comes down to abortion versus suffering of the poor. While I still haven't made up my mind, I think I might be leaning left.

Or I could always go with the tried and true political position of apathy.

Homosexuality

I was planning to do a post on homosexuality at some point but it seems that this conversation is already going over at free convection. I encourage you to take a look and join in the discussion.

Real Post Coming Soon.

About Me

If past experience influences present perception then it would probably be helpful for me to explain a little about my background.

I was born in 1985 on Long Island, New York to middle class suburbia. I come from a very fundamental Pentecostal Christian family. My father is a Pentecostal pastor. My grandfather is a Pentecostal pastor. My great grandfather was a Lutheran pastor, but they kicked him out for speaking in tongues. Then he became a Pentecostal pastor. The main thing that separates Pentecostals from other forms of Christianity is the belief that the spiritual gifts (described in 1 Cor. 12, Romans 12) are actively being utilized by the present day church.

I've lived in several different places. Long Island from 0-7 years old. Indiana just outside Indianapolis from 7-8 years old. Kingston, NY from 8-13 years old. Indiana again from 13-15 years old. Long Island again from 15-18 years old. Then I moved off to college in Rochester, NY from age 18 to 23 years old. Rochester is my current residence, but not for much longer.

All of this moving helped me to be familiar with many different kinds of cultures. However, since I was always involved in a Pentecostal church, I was never exposed to other Christian viewpoints until starting college. I have gone to christian schools while in Kingston and my latter stay on LI but I've found that they make it a point not to bring up any theology that is outside of the basic Christian doctrine. After all, you can't get the parents paying for tuition angry. I think this shaped my thinking of how to deal with different denominations. Don't bring up doctrinal differences so you don't offend fellow Christians. I've now come to believe that this viewpoint sacrifices meaningful conversation and spiritual growth in the name of some silly notion of christian unity. (I'm not saying unity is silly, just the false idea of what unity is.)

As a result of all of this, I never really questioned my faith until I was 18 years old. Once in college I could not help but be exposed to all sorts of views, not just of Christianity but of many religions. Since then my theology has changed, and I've become stronger in what it is I believe. I still find myself only discussing the basics sometimes but I'm working on not shying away from uncomfortable conversations. This blog is one outlet for that.

Anything else you want to know, don't be afraid to ask.

A Little Perspective First

Before I talk about any particular topics, I want to address the issue of perspective. Nobody is able to see the entire world exactly as it is. There are so many things that limit us. The only way to experience what is around us is through our senses. Sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and if you want to include some sort of sixth sense or some sort of spiritual sense or instinctive sense, that's fine too. All information that we receive passes through them. But our senses only work in a small range away from our bodies. In addition they are imperfect and incomplete. Senses can deceive us. Our senses do not give a complete picture of what is even immediately around us. For example, our eyes only see what we call the visible spectrum. But there are so many other forms of electromagnetism that we cannot perceive such as X-rays, infrared, radio waves, etc. Imagine a world which is exactly the same as it is now except that nobody has eyes. No one can perceive color or even light and dark. Imagine how differently we would sense the world. Concepts such as the moon and stars would become unknown. How would people try to explain the tide? Now imagine that we have an extra sense. You'll need to think about it a little abstractly but imaging how much our understanding of reality would benefit.

Even if two people are looking at the same object, they will still have different experiences associated with it. Everything we sense, we then process. And nobody processes information in the same manner. We all have prejudices and presuppositions affected by our past experiences. Our experience is sort of like a filter through which we process the world.

Perspective: Good or Bad? I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't have different perspectives. But people in philosophy at least do argue whether or not they are beneficial. One person will argue that it would be ideal if we were all able to see with the "mind of God." That is to say we were able to see reality for what it really is. We would need to get rid of the filters that taint the truth. Another person will argue that while that sounds great, it's not possible. No one can get rid of perspective. Instead we should try to see the world though as many perspectives as possible. The idea here is that if truth is a mountain, and we are all standing around it, the only way to see the entire mountain is to combine the views of everyone. Everyone has part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

I tend to agree with the latter thought, but both views have some merit for me. In response to the first idea, I think it is beneficial to get rid of some of the filters that we have put up that block us from thinking about something correctly. However, it is not realistic to get rid of every filter, and not all of them are even bad to have. Therefore we should try to see the world from a multi-perspective view. I'm not saying that everything everyone believes is true but that there is some truth at least in their beliefs. If everyone sort of sees only a small part of the mountain of truth, they have to fill in the blanks with a lot of other things that don't necessarily constitute what is correct. I will argue that there is some truth in every religion and in every worldview. And that is the point of this blog. Bring together many perspectives, even ones that you do not agree with, and find truth. Strengthen your own picture of what reality is all about. And even if in the end you don't change your opinion on an issue, you will have a much better understanding of why you believe it.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

(untitled)

There are two things you should know about me. The first is that I love a good title. The second is that I am not very good at coming up with good titles. Whenever I write a paper, the title is usually the last thing I add. It also takes a significant amount of time to get it right. But I feel it is worth the investment. The title can be an important factor in setting the tone of anything.

I would have started this blog quite some time ago if not for the facts stated above. A blog is not like a paper or a poem. The title comes first. The content follows. A well-titled blog will draw my attention and I will be more likely to read the content and return for more. A few examples of nice blog titles are Paradigms and Revolutions (you have to read Thomas Kuhn to get it), Good Math, Bad Math and my personal favorite free convection (I'm mostly jealous I didn't think of it first). After mulling over a lot of possibilities I have found one that I really like (of course the domain name was taken).

Iron Sharpens Iron. So what is this title all about? Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) reads "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." This verse speaks to the mutual edification of people. But the sharpening process is not passive. Sharpening takes work; it's not easy. It should be challenging. I grow the most when I feel the most challenged. The most challenged I feel is when I have to rub up against those whose opinions are not my own, people who see the world in a different light. I have grown a significant amount since first beginning college. The wide array of viewpoints has caused me to make serious reflections on my own beliefs. Oftentimes I am passive when it comes to my opinion of issues that may be different from those around me (As long as we agree on the basics, the rest doesn't really matter all too much). I wish to change that. I want to present issues that many of my readers hopefully will disagree with. I want to generate discussion that makes me and you sharp. Not all conversations will necessarily be religious. I am sure I will delve into politics and philosophy and everything else that makes up my view of the world. And of course my perspective is subject to change.


I want to be iron.